Re: Unicode Devanagari Font in Mozilla

From: Michael \(michka\) Kaplan (
Date: Tue Jul 16 2002 - 09:47:23 EDT

From: "Michael Jansson" <>

> I'm not arguing that you can not update one Win9x machine to
> show Tamil correctly. I'm arguing that you should not advice
> companies to tell a million web users to do that on a broad basis.
> You need test coverage, support, etc before doing that.

Luckily, the vast majority of web sites in *any* l;angauge do not get a
million hits in a decade, let alone a year, let alone a month, let alone a
week, etc.

It is wonderful to have a scalable product for the sites that get over a
million hits in a single day. Truly. But I do not know of any Tamil sites
that are quite there yet (or even in that decade order of magnitude). Do

> Let's summarize what I have said:
> 1 - My original posting on this thread clearly states that you need
> to be careful when trying to use Uniscribe on Win9x, because it
> is not officially supported there. There would be an official
> "Update your Win9x with Uniscribe" service pack if it would be
> possible. Maybe there will be someday, though I doubt it.

There is, they call it "Internet Explorer". Cool, huh? Lucky its such a
popular browser.

And its very well supported on Win9x, and I do not see any note that the
Uniscribe they place on the Win9x machine is unsupported?

> 2 - I have exemplified why including download and installation
> instructions for upgrading a Win9x machine with Uniscribe is a
> bad idea. Am I wrong? Am I badmouthing anyone?

Well, if they are willing to install a browser that will supply the
components needed, magical things may happen.

> Why are you constantly bringing up the fact that my company
> offer a solution that deals with problems on Win9x? Yes, we
> do. There are several other solutions from various sources that
> do that. I don't consider anyone of them to be perfect (not even
> our own), because you do not get reliable Unicode support on
> Win9x with them. This is not badmouthing any of these solution
> (including installing Uniscribe on Win9x). It's the way it is. I'm not
> talking about any of these solutions.

In some places, they call this reducto ad absurdum -- the claim that because
everything is not supported means that nothing is. I think Godel said it
best when talking about his work and he pointed out that just because a
system could not be 100% complete and 100% consistent does not mean that it

> Giving advice to people that they should go ahead and update
> their Win9x machines with Uniscribe is plain unethical.

Ok, at this point, as I suffer from flashbacks of an Overingtarianesque
complaint about antitrust law. As was the case then, this is the point where
I bow out. This thread can go and will go nowhere good.

<Signing off>


Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc. --

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Tue Jul 16 2002 - 08:04:24 EDT